The Instigator
zach12
Con (against)
Winning
26 Points
The Contender
Amphibian
Pro (for)
Losing
24 Points

Human Cloning if/when it is achieved, should be legal in the U.S.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 9 votes the winner is...
zach12
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/13/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,633 times Debate No: 6912
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (9)

 

zach12

Con

I would like to start by stating that I am on the con side of this argument. I have had two opponents resign on this one, for some reason they confirmed it then never posted anything. So please only confirm this debate if you have intentions to seriously debate it. Thanks you.

I will establish the definition of a clone:

Clone- a cell, cell product, or organism that is genetically identical to the unit or individual from which it was derived. (dictionary.com) In this debate I am referring to complete human cloning, not just a single organ

With that clarified I am going to state the reasons I am against cloning.

1.) The world is full of people, and already we are seeing a strain on our resources. With a population that just keeps growing and growing, we don't have room to feed and house clones.

2.) It would cause problems for the legal system. If you have two people with the same DNA running around it would be nearly impossible to know if the original person or his/her clone committed a crime when using DNA testing.

3.) There is every likelihood that clones would be an underclass, used only for replacement organs.

4.) Creating human life just so you can destroy it for research is horrible and unethical.

5.) If the first attempt at human cloning fails it could negatively affect all of science especially stem cell research

6.) Most animal clones to date have died young, therefore human clones would most likely die young as well.

Good luck to whomever decides to debate this with me.
Amphibian

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for an excellent topic.

Cloning itself poses no problems, if problems do arise it will be because of lack of acceptance on the part of ignorant people. There is no need for a clone to be a secondary citizen. If such issue are encountered it will the fault of society, not of science. To allow fear of other peoples flaws stop progress is a mistake. If the United States government made the technology illegal it would only reflect their own bias. The points my opponent made against cloning are not truly against cloning, they all deal with problems that already exist. These problems hurt all of us and the fact that they would affect a clone as well is a non issue. We might as well decide to wipe out the whales because we don't want to hurt them.

A persons organs can be harvested and used by another person with the same blood type whether the donor is a clone or not. Fortunately there are laws against forcibly taking someone's body parts. If clones were subject to such horrors then it is clear which law would need to be enacted, not a law against cloning but a law against the brutal treatment of clones.
Debate Round No. 1
zach12

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for accepting my debate.

My opponent starts off by stating that cloning itself poses no problems. This is completely untrue. Cloning has whole hordes of problems. It is incredibly inefficient; only about .1-3% of attempted clones succeed. Of those, many are disfigured horribly or they die early. Making disfigured humans when we know the risks seems vehemently irresponsible.

http://www.icr.org...

Also, my opponent says that if a problem occurred in clones becoming an underclass, it would be the fault of society and not science. This is completely irrelevant because we are debating whether or not cloning should be legal, not who's fault the problems with cloning are.

Also, my opponent has completely ignored my argument concerning the horrors cloning would do to the legal system. Crimes would become unsolvable on a DNA basis. fingerprints would stop being affective.

Thanks for reading and as always, vote con
Amphibian

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for their response.

It is true that cloning would have to go to another level scientifically before it was legal for humans to be cloned. This, however, is only a matter of time. The issue of clone deformity is a pre legalization problem and has nothing to do with the decision of whether or not to legalize human cloning.

Also my opponent has continued to state that we should not legalize cloning because of worries that they will cause problems with our legal system. Imagine if people had thought the same thing about automobiles. We can't make cars because if we do, then criminals will use them to escape. The same thing can be said about every advance in science and technology from the printing press to the cellular phone, something that help good people can also help bad people. If we stop cloning from being legalized on grounds that it will make it hard for us to catch criminals then we are allowing ourselves to be bullied into submission.

Not only that but the problem would be easily solved. If a person requested that a clone be made of themselves then we would make it a requirement to alter that persons fingerprints and insert a non active strand of DNA into their own DNA. That way clones are still anonymous if need be and the two are genetically different while remaining exactly the same person.

Don't forget that there where also problems when the slaves were freed but since then we have come far. If I need evidence of this you need look only as far as the White House. Once more, acceptance and free thinking are the keys to progress whether you are dealing with racial equality or science.

Please vote in affirmation.
Debate Round No. 2
zach12

Con

I would like to once again thank my opponent for taking this debate, and responding quickly.

My opponent says "Imagine if people had thought the same thing about automobiles. We can't make cars because if we do, then criminals will use them to escape." This is an absurd analogy. A car can be used by both the police and criminals; the same cannot be said about clones. A criminal can make clones in order to hurt the government, but the government can't very well make an army of clones like in star wars. If that eventually occurs, it's just more justification for making cloning illegal from the get-go.

Then my opponent says "Not only that but the problem would be easily solved. If a person requested that a clone be made of themselves then we would make it a requirement to alter that persons fingerprints and insert a non active strand of DNA into their own DNA. That way clones are still anonymous if need be and the two are genetically different while remaining exactly the same person."

I have a couple of questions about the above statement.
1.) Where are you getting information about the possibility of altering fingerprints and inserting a non-active strand of DNA?
2.) How would one go about enforcing said rule?
3.)" be and the two are genetically different while remaining exactly the same person."—this is a contradictory statement is it not?

I thank you for reading and urge you to vote pro.
Amphibian

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for his response.

First I will address my opponents questions.
1. "Where are you getting information about the possibility of altering fingerprints and inserting a non-active strand of DNA?" My information on DNA insertion came from Nature Magazines website and from the Human Genome Society website, but let me explain it. You take a genetically altered virus and form a non active string of Deoxyribo Nucleic Acid. You infect a host cell with the virus. The virus attempts to replicate but instead releases the DNA into the host cell as a genetic marker.

As for fingerprint alteration you could simply tattoo, scar or surgically alter a persons fingerprint in order to identify them separately.

2. "How would one go about enforcing said rule?" There would have to be regulations governing who can get a clone. Everyone who did would have to undergo the DNA insertion and Fingerprint alteration. We would enforce these laws in the same way we enforce any others.

3. " 'be and the two are genetically different while remaining exactly the same person.'—this is a contradictory statement is it not?" This situation is similar to one with a vehicle. If you and your neighbor had exactly the same car, same year, make, model, color, everything even mileage the same, they would still have different licence plates. That little number is a way to distinguish between the two without altering them, it is the same with the clones.

I would also like to emphasize the point that distinctions can be easily made between a clone and the original. Things like sunspots, scars, and tattoos are all easy things to document and us for profiling. Even a person's epigenome would be entirely separate from their clones. Once again we cannot allow speculative fear of criminal activity stop us from making scientific and social progress.

Please vote pro.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Puck 7 years ago
Puck
Verily.
Posted by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
hey puck, do you get your name from midsummernight's dream? just curious :P
Posted by sorc 7 years ago
sorc
The only argument Con pushed was negated by Pro, hence I voted Pro
Posted by Puck 7 years ago
Puck
Why clone humans for organs when you can just clone and grow the organs themselves? :P
Posted by zach12 7 years ago
zach12
rofl i'm a retard, i meant vote CON!
Posted by puppyluvz 7 years ago
puppyluvz
um, con, you said vote pro!
Posted by TheSkeptic 7 years ago
TheSkeptic
If you make the voting period go on forever, then I will definitely take this debate and hopefully give you a challenge ;)
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by saamanthagrl 7 years ago
saamanthagrl
zach12AmphibianTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by hauki20 7 years ago
hauki20
zach12AmphibianTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
zach12AmphibianTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by philosphical 7 years ago
philosphical
zach12AmphibianTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Epicism 7 years ago
Epicism
zach12AmphibianTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Vote Placed by zach12 7 years ago
zach12
zach12AmphibianTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by TheSexicanMexican 7 years ago
TheSexicanMexican
zach12AmphibianTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by sorc 7 years ago
sorc
zach12AmphibianTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by JBlake 7 years ago
JBlake
zach12AmphibianTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31